Brian E Carpenter wrote:
The current situation (where STD 1 was last updated in July 2004)
is clearly misleading for outsiders.
Yes, for some time I thought that it's caused by what also caused
the pending errata congestion, or that they use another trigger
for a new STD 1 - a fresh RFC ??00
Frank,
Thanks for the comments.
On 2008-01-19 21:58, Frank Ellermann wrote:
Brian E Carpenter wrote:
mosts CDs seem to have index pages of some kind - something like
http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfcxx00.html would do it (and that is
always up to date, whereas STD1 is normally out of date).
Brian E Carpenter wrote:
mosts CDs seem to have index pages of some kind - something like
http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfcxx00.html would do it (and that is
always up to date, whereas STD1 is normally out of date).
IMO they should resume to publish ??00 RFCs as STD 1 at least when
there is a
On 2008-01-18 23:20, Frank Ellermann wrote:
Brian E Carpenter wrote:
the question is whether people are interested enough to comment...
...and maybe also how interested the author is to answer comments:
http://article.gmane.org/gmane.ietf.general/27581/match=2026
[RFC 3700]
You still
Hi folks,
I produced this update at the request of Russ Housley. It's
considerably tightened up from the previous versions - now the
question is whether people are interested enough to comment...
Brian
Original Message
Subject: I-D Action:draft-carpenter-rfc2026-changes-02
- Original Message -
From: Brian E Carpenter [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: IETF discussion list ietf@ietf.org
Sent: Wednesday, January 16, 2008 6:23 PM
Subject: [Fwd: I-D Action:draft-carpenter-rfc2026-changes-02.txt]
Hi folks,
I produced this update at the request of Russ Housley. It's
